Here is a classic piece of tabloid medicine by the LA Times’ Melissa Healy. Her bias: statins are a rip off and clinical trials increasing their use in primary prevention are designed to hype benefits - of course with FDA complicity.
And here is the supposed knockout blow:
“Tens of billions of dollars of revenue for the sponsor over the patent life of the drug were at stake in the JUPITER trial, as well as potentially millions of dollars in royalties for the principal investigator," wrote Dr. Lee Green of the University of Michigan Medical School in an editorial accompanying the trio of studies. “Doubtless, both sponsor and investigative team believe they made their design decisions for the right reasons,” Green added. “But social psychology research provides abundant evidence that we human beings both respond strongly to self-interest incentives and firmly believe that we do not.”
Except, Dr. Green and Melissa, if we assume that both of you are human beings too isn't it also the case that the studies attacking the biological evidence showing a casual relationship between inflammation and heart attacks as well as the LA Times story are also shaped by ' self-interest incentives'.
The difference is 'the studies' - which Melissa apparently never read -- are simply data dredging exercises spurred by those who resent commercial development of science and who also profit from their attacks, whereas the Jupiter study had to be approved by the FDA, is based on prior biologically based experiments.
But neither Dr. Green or Melissa regard those self interest incentives as important.
Setting aside the untested assumption that simply having a self interest can somehow skew biological results -- if this were the case then why isn't every clinical trial of commercial value successful? -- how is it that some motives are more beneficial to individual health than others?
Apparently people like Dr. Green and Melissa believe they know best.
